Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Well. Actually, it all depends how you approach Aikido. There are ways of approaching it such that Atemi is essential. There are also ways of approaching it where atemi is almost incidental or even undesirable. They can both be martially effective. You have to have the knowledge and experience. Some do, some don't, some don't care.

There are real reasons why Atemi has it's limitations, under many circumstances - in fact, it can be your certain undoing if you're not careful.

There is no one way in Aikido that is the only effective way.

Well
It is true that our opponent can over extend, which is what I understand ki no nogary is about. Like in swordsmaship, you can always cut the hands of someone that over extend and keep your self out of range.
So yes there is no need for atemi, in fact in that case it would be contra-productive

But there is case where our opponent does not extend outside his balanced extension range. In that case not using atemi is as contra-productive as using them in the case above

Phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Much of Atemi (in Aikido/Aiki-jujutsu) comes from pressure point and nerve strikes, and has very little to do with belting someone anywhere.

hello, larry
I was wondering if you could expend on that.
The reason I ask is that I am interested in 15th century Ringen and in the manuscript I am studying there are strikes called "murder-strike". The idea is to strike or press as you move forward some particularly sensitive area of the body. It is bigger area than what we would cover now by pressure points. (But it can be use to press or to strike). And I was wondering if you were refereeing to something similar.

Phil

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Well
It is true that our opponent can over extend, which is what I understand ki no nogary is about. Like in swordsmaship, you can always cut the hands of someone that over extend and keep your self out of range.
So yes there is no need for atemi, in fact in that case it would be contra-productive

But there is case where our opponent does not extend outside his balanced extension range. In that case not using atemi is as contra-productive as using them in the case above

Phil

I look at it very differently, so for me, whether or not things are more static (kihon practice) or more in movement (ki no nagare) doesn't particularly define anything about the use of atemi. For me, reliance on atemi is dangerous, whether one is using it to distract, unbalance, or to actually hurt. To use your example, if an attacker can attack in a centered way and I try to use atemi to unbalance them, there's always the chance that I will then simply become the attacker and have it used against me. I only "use atemi" when there's something about the moment that tells me it's safe, appropriate, and necessary, which to me, at least, isn't that often. Others feel differently, I understand that. To each their own.

hello, larry
I was wondering if you could expend on that.
The reason I ask is that I am interested in 15th century Ringen and in the manuscript I am studying there are strikes called "murder-strike". The idea is to strike or press as you move forward some particularly sensitive area of the body. It is bigger area than what we would cover now by pressure points. (But it can be use to press or to strike). And I was wondering if you were refereeing to something similar.

Phil

The simple answer is - trying to affect someone by simply striking them is.... well, a hit or miss proposition, if you'll forgive the pun. The old ways had to do with understanding how a strike to a vulnerable area would disable in a specific way, be it a nerve point, meridian point, plexis, soft tissue, muscle, joint.... striking any of these will result in different results to the attacker.

You can see the beginning of this in the basic Daito ryu response to yokomen uchi ikkajo (ikkyo.) The first response is both a connection to the strike, and also a strike to the nerve point under the attacker's elbow.

Hello Larry, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. (I have a felling that we are saying the same thing)

I do not oppose in movement and static.
And opponent can overextend attack from movement or from being static. By the same token he can remain within his own space whilst moving, which is what enables use to do counter technique.

What I was taking about was more in line with the timing Xu brought about and which is present even in the earliest fighting manuacript albeit in different guise, the "before" and the "after" foe the medieval German, the true times for 17cent England or timing in modern combative.

Let's use your kihon static attack from yokomen.
If our opponent over extend: (I.E have his shoulder in front of his hips as he moves forward).
He can not mount an effective reply to the initial grab of ikkio (or any technique) so we are already in front of him. So even if he tries to remove his hand withou moving the rest of his boddy, which is quikest thing he can do, we are a step in front of him and we can use whatever he does to stay in front of him
If the atemi, like the one you describe goes with the normal functioning of the technique. (We are going to have to grab the elbow anyway) It can only re-enforce our being in front. So we might as well do it, but not doing it is not going to be detrimental either.

However hitting him in throat is spending that advantage and possibly stops him doing something that we are quite happy for him to do. As Napoleon said do not interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake.
So you could say that in that case (strike to the throat) you either hit him or finish the technique

If our opponent is centred when he attacks:
Our initial grab if we take it on his own is exactly the same thing as us attacking him with one of the katatedori.
In those condition the atemi the one you do or an attack to face throat is capital for us to be in control (and need to be there at te same time or there about as the initail grab)
Either way we have created a situation when he can not substract his arm or we force him to move his body in a way that is favourable for our technique to develop (e g that is detrimental to him) so as in the previous case we are before him.

And other way to gain that control is to move and to force him to extend as he adjust his strike as he tries to hit us but that relies on him being fooled by us. But if that works we are in the same case as the first option.

Phil

Last edited by philippe willaume : 04-27-2007 at 06:26 AM.

One Ringeck to bring them all and in darkness bind them,
In the Land of Windsor where phlip phlop live.

Hello Larry, I think you may have misunderstood what I was trying to say. (I have a felling that we are saying the same thing)

First, I wanted to say that I meant to say Shomen uchi, not Yokomen uchi - it doesn't matter but I wanted to be clear.

Anyway - it's complicated to me - for instance - why would I really need to hit someone? It causes a negative emotional reaction which might come back to me, and if the only tool I have to allow someone to become unbalanced, then for my approach, my Aikido isn't very complete. It's the old argument - what Is atemi? It's different things to different people.

The "one knuckle punch" is a type of strike that is designed for soft tissue areas and particularly nerve spots. The focus of energy, like the beam of a flashlight is focused into a narrow "beam". This type of punch would be a bad idea against strong, bones and bone plates. Attacking those areas are best done with broad knuckle fists, or knife hand strikes (depending upon area to be struck and trajectory of the strike).

Generally speaking an Atemi Waza was a technique in which you strike the opponent at a physiologically weak point (ie. a vital point) in order to render him unconscious. Kansetsu waza were joint locks that were designed to attack an opponent's joint in order to cause severe sprains or dislocations. Although these techniques do have this dangerous side to them, I feel that if you really understand the fundamentals of these techniques you will see that the resulting concussion or pain is only an incidental part of the technique and can be divorced from the technique proper as such. Even though these techniques were designed by our predecessors to have such dangerous and lethal end results, the main core of the technique could still, nevertheless, be seen as a throw or a hold.

Therefore the striking techniques of Aikido incorporate the idea of balance breaking; the result being that the opponent is brought down due to loss of balance rather than because he was hit on some vital point. Thus it is not necesary to kill or hurt him by using strong impact, nor is it necessary to train your hand or fist to withstand such impact.

In the modern Budo form of Judo, the aim is to break the opponent's balance and throw him by using foot and hip movements without injuring him. Similarly in the Atemi Waza of the modern Budo form of Aikido, the aim should be to take advantage of breaking your opponent's balance and push or strike him down using your hand or arm without injuring him. Most Judo throwing techniques employ the use of force to two points on the opponent's body in two directions at the same time. In Aikido, on the other hand, force is usually used in one direction on one part of the body. "
by Kenji Tomiki

Like I said, different people look at atemi differently. I personally don't think one way is the only right way.

I see Aikido the same way. For instance, I never try to "break" anyone's balance. I look at kuzushi very differently. I experience it as -allowing- someone to -lose- their balance - which is actually different. So I would then look at atemi very differently.

If I were doing Aikido to break someone's balance, I might look at atemi as an actual strike. But I don't. Plus, I believe that Aikido is evolving.

I see Aikido the same way. For instance, I never try to "break" anyone's balance. I look at kuzushi very differently. I experience it as -allowing- someone to -lose- their balance - which is actually different. So I would then look at atemi very differently.

If I were doing Aikido to break someone's balance, I might look at atemi as an actual strike. But I don't. Plus, I believe that Aikido is evolving.

LN

Larry, from watching the videos on your site, I see where you're coming from. You seem to be from the aikido as movement practice camp. Personally, I don't really consider that to be aikido, as it lacks any martial component. To each his own however, a lot of people would not think a lot of the stuff I do would be considered aikido either.

Hi Larry,
Atemi is implicit in every aspect of what we do in Aikido. Katate tori isn't an attack, it's a practice tool. It presupposes the strike with the other hand and people need to practice as if the other hand were doing that strike or they are totally open.

If I grab you and you begin to take my balance, what reason do I have for holding on? Why don't I just let go and break the connection? It's the knowledge that I am open to your atemi that forces me to keep the grab once I've committed.

When I attack and you enter, why don't I just hunker down and plant so I cannot be moved? I am forced to stay responsive by the possibility of your atemi. Saotome Sensei said that if you knew the other guy wouldn't strike you, all techniques would be stoppable.

Every throw you do in Aikido is a strike you are choosing not to do. The strikes are at the heart of the logic behind the whole interaction. That does not mean that you necessarily see them. I seldom throw an atemi in practice... but my students seldom put me in the position that I need to.

Larry, from watching the videos on your site, I see where you're coming from. You seem to be from the aikido as movement practice camp. Personally, I don't really consider that to be aikido, as it lacks any martial component. To each his own however, a lot of people would not think a lot of the stuff I do would be considered aikido either.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean....? Ah - If I do understand it, you are completely incorrect. :-)

I have put my Aikido to the test over many years and learned a lot about martiallity, if that's a word.... studied Judo, Karate, Hapkido, and other stuff as well.... including a long stint in BJJ with a friend who was the main teacher under Rickson. I also teach women's self-defense, successfully. So, actually, I think my style is extremely martially responsible. Perhaps the clips don't reflect that though.... or it's not so "visible." But I can -guarantee- you, it's there.... just because I don't use atemi much - don't mean a thang.... :-)

We all have at one time read/hard the quote from O'Sensei: "Aikido is 90% atemi..." or some other variant/percentage thereof.

Question: what role do you think atemi waza plays in "modern" Aikido? Does it have a place, should it have a place, etc. If so, what sort of atemi waza would best fit modern Aikido?

I'm not trying to "stir the pot" or provoke responses via a rhetorical question...I'm genuinely curious as to others' opinions & experiences.

On a personal note: currently I am taking an 8-week "crash course" in Kajukenbo, specifically the Chu'an Fa variant, which heavily emphasizes strikes. It has given me much reflection lately.

Thanks,
Brian

At this point, I suppose I should clarify what I mean a bit further. Some instructors emphasize it as essential and thus incorporate it fluidly into technical instruction. Others occasionally teach it and/or treat it as clearly of secondary importance. Some even disregard it entirely...all of this sometimes within the same dojo in regards to assistant instructors (I've personally seen it happen). Each instructor has their own approach, "interpretation" of Aikido and these differences of opinion/experience are to be respected...nobody "owns" Aikido.

That being said, can there be Aikido without atemi waza? That is, there are some instructors who do teach an "atemi-less" Aikido.

Hi Larry,
Atemi is implicit in every aspect of what we do in Aikido. Katate tori isn't an attack, it's a practice tool. It presupposes the strike with the other hand and people need to practice as if the other hand were doing that strike or they are totally open.

Yes, of course.

Quote:

If I grab you and you begin to take my balance, what reason do I have for holding on? Why don't I just let go and break the connection? It's the knowledge that I am open to your atemi that forces me to keep the grab once I've committed.

That's the way you do Aikido, but not me. Actually, that process has nothing to do with my Aikido, believe it or not. That's why I believe - there are many ways to do Aikido, and there is no One right way. Some people believe otherwise though.

Quote:

When I attack and you enter, why don't I just hunker down and plant so I cannot be moved? I am forced to stay responsive by the possibility of your atemi. Saotome Sensei said that if you knew the other guy wouldn't strike you, all techniques would be stoppable.

Not my experience.

Quote:

Every throw you do in Aikido is a strike you are choosing not to do. The strikes are at the heart of the logic behind the whole interaction. That does not mean that you necessarily see them. I seldom throw an atemi in practice... but my students seldom put me in the position that I need to.

I am very well aware of all the possibilties of striking in Aikido. But again, in my Aikido, the heart of the logic behind the whole interactgion has absolutely nothing to do with that.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean....? Ah - If I do understand it, you are completely incorrect. :-)

Sorry, some of your comments hit my passive-agressive aikido buttons. I do not believe there is any aikido without atemi, and I'm not talking about whacking people with straight punches. I agree completely with the quoted article from Tomiki Sensei on the nature of atemi in aikido. I also don't believe anyone can get kuzushi by allowing uke to volunteer it. I've seen and practiced with a lot of aikido folks who *say* that they're not doing anything to uke, just allowing them to throw themselves, but when they actually have to throw me, they suddenly find it in themselves to actually affect my structure (if they are able to throw me anyway...). I feel that kind of language does a disservice to ones students, and traps them in an overly cooperative artificial training environment. Quite frankly, your videos look very very cooperative on the part of uke. Sounds like you have an interesting and varied training background however, so I'm probably wrong.

Sorry, some of your comments hit my passive-agressive aikido buttons. I do not believe there is any aikido without atemi, and I'm not talking about whacking people with straight punches. I agree completely with the quoted article from Tomiki Sensei on the nature of atemi in aikido. I also don't believe anyone can get kuzushi by allowing uke to volunteer it. I've seen and practiced with a lot of aikido folks who *say* that they're not doing anything to uke, just allowing them to throw themselves, but when they actually have to throw me, they suddenly find it in themselves to actually affect my structure (if they are able to throw me anyway...). I feel that kind of language does a disservice to ones students, and traps them in an overly cooperative artificial training environment. Quite frankly, your videos look very very cooperative on the part of uke. Sounds like you have an interesting and varied training background however, so I'm probably wrong.

I really do understand your point of view. It's always tricky for me to even discuss this stuff, because it's all in the feeling and actuality of it. The language can get confused, the ideas can get distorted.... etc. But in truth, there are ways to be connected to uke such that you don't really do anything To them, but With them. This involves the nature of the connection, movement, and intention. To learn it involves a cooperative training environment, to do it, doesn't. I've practice a Lot with extremely unccoroperative attackers, in fact my students don't actually let me get away with anything - unless I'm simply showing a principle etc., in a teaching situation.) To add, I've had many experienced yudansha come to my class and very few could even throw my white bellts without resorting to trying to hurt them. This, to be honest, includes an instructor from Hombu dojo. We tend to wok with principles that perhaps not everyone does. Not trying to toot my horn here, just being honest. I will add though, that one of the other people I have personally experienced as working in a somewhat similar fashion, comes in part from a Tomiki background, that would be Chuck Clark.

In truth, when people come to see my Aikido, I am well aware that it often looks fake. I don't have a problem with that. I have had the same reaction many many times when they feel it - or not, as the case may be. That is: "Huh, do that again."

We use the principle of what my original teacher termed Kinesthetic Invisibility, where there is no real perceptable physical reference to react against. This goes a long way in "allowing uke to unbalance themselves" - yes, with a little help, but if done right it doesn't take much, and isn't about doing something To them.

I've practiced many different styles of Aikido, including Seagal's when he was teaching every night. There really are many paths. Some do tend ot have different outcomes though.

We use the principle of what my original teacher termed Kinesthetic Invisibility, where there is no real perceptable physical reference to react against. This goes a long way in "allowing uke to unbalance themselves" - yes, with a little help, but if done right it doesn't take much, and isn't about doing something To them.

Perhaps this is a logical distinction, but I feel that the intention of uke and nage need to be taken into account when discussing things like this. Of course well done kuzushi doesn't take much, that's how kuzushi works, but the question in my mind is whose version of the desired outcome is actualized? If uke's goal is to grab or stike nage, they have no intention to be thrown or thwarted. Nage's goal is to avoid injury and throw or otherwise disable uke's goal of harm. I don't care one bit how 'easy' or subtle nage's movements are to off balance uke. Even if they're using uke's own reflex arcs against them, their (nage's) intention is causing uke's loss of balance and nage has to face the fact that they went into the encounter with ego and intention and that there's nothing wrong with that. Yes the strategies can include moving as a unified whole (moving with uke as you say), and some of the really subtle stuff may occur almost exclusively within nage's body, but the intention of the encounter is that of nage imposing their will over uke. I simply refuse to believe otherwise, it makes no logical sense to me, and I have never felt it from anyone (including a lot of people claiming that was what they were doing). So if you're adding that little bit of help, why not admit the reality of the encounter and accept your role in the encounter? (Please read that last sentence as a rhetorical question, and not a direct attack on you personally.)